Stanford
University recently conducted a study that
shows a minimal number of scientists who do not accept that human
beings have contributed to the Earth's climate change have "far
less expertise and prominence in climate research" than
scientists who do believe climate change has been affected by
humans.

The
university came to these
conclusions by analyzing the number of research papers
published "by more than 900 climate researchers" and the
number of times these researchers' works were cited by other
scientists. The expertise was evaluated by citing the number of
research papers written by scientists (with the minimum number for
inclusion being 20).

Prominence
was analyzed by finding the four most popular climate change and
non-climate change papers published by scientists, and "tallying"
the number of times these papers were cited. According to the
results, approximately 64 percent of papers by climate researchers
convinced
of human contribution were cited more often than those who
are unconvinced.

The
scientists who participated in the study were also involved in
creating the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which compiled and "assessed
the evidence for and against human involvement in climate change, as
well as any climate researchers who signed a major public statement
disagreeing with the findings of the panel's report."

In
addition, the university's team of scientists decided on who the top
100 climate researchers are by determining the "total number of
climate-related publications each had." According to Anderegg,
97 percent of those in the top 100 agree with and/or endorse the
IPCC's assessment. He also says that this result has been "borne
out" by other studies that use different methodology.

"We
really wanted to bring the expertise dimension into this whole
discussion," said Anderegg. "We hope to put to rest the
notion that keeps being repeated in the media and by some members of
the public that 'the scientists disagree' about whether human
activity is contributing to climate change."

The
scientists at Stanford have mentioned that they are ready to take
some heat from doubters of anthropogenic, or human-affected, climate
change who "object to their data." But according to Stephen
Schneider, a professor of biology and a coauthor of the paper
in Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, the
team "took pains to avoid any sort of prejudice or skewed data
in their analysis." When selecting researchers for the study who
either disagreed
with statements of the IPCC or signed the petitions, the
Stanford team was sure to stay completely neutral in the study by
omitting "those who had no published papers in the climate
literature."

Schneider
says that despite the careful analysis of this study, skeptics of
human-affected climate change will "claim foul" anyway, and
will say that climate researchers who are onboard with the idea of
anthropogenic climate change are "just trying to deny
publication of the doubters' opinion," but he challenges them to
"go out and do a study to prove it -- it is of course not true."

"I
think the most typical criticism of a paper like this -- not
necessarily in academic discourse, but in the broader context -- is
going to be that we haven't addressed these sorts of differences
could be due to some clique or, at the extreme, a conspiracy of the
researchers who are convinced of climate change," Anderegg
said.

"When
you stop to consider whether some sort of 'group think' really
drives these
patterns and it could really exist in science in general,
the idea is really pretty laughable," he said. "All of the
incentives in science are exactly the opposite."

This
Stanford study is the first of its kind to address the issue of
scientists' opinions of human-affected climate change, and what their
level of expertise and prominence in the field is.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Really, a global conspiracy of global warming is a pretty elaborate trick to pull off just to increase their control over their citizens. There is many other ways to do that, which is both cheaper, and/or more difficult to disprove.

If global warming were easy to disprove we would have done it by now. Disproving global warming is like disproving a fortune teller. You can't disprove what they think is going to happen any more than they can prove it.

All you can do is ignore them and not give them any of our money. I suggest you apply the same to Al Gore and all of his cultists.

The problem is that all Global Warming/Climate Change models predicated on a principle that Earth's temperature is stagnant. Meaning, within a certain time frame, temp is supposed to remain steady and even.

So if you say it isn't normal that Earth's temps vary not only every 100, but every 50, 10, or even a single year...any time there is a variation, they can go out and find data that shows how the temp is varying. This data then "proves" the temp is not normal (because they say temp must remain the same) therefor climate change exists. The principle they hold is that Earth's temp only changes (one way or the other) after catastrophic events or over thousands/millions of years.

Rather than changing the premise of the model (that it is normal for temps to vary), they instead use it as "evidence" how the climate is changing and humans are the fault of it. Then you have people arguing about whether or not humans are responsible and claim people who say the temp is not changing "loonies", because the temp does change/vary.

It is part of the Hegelian Dialectic to create two view points with a narrow view and use them to argue the existence of the other. This allows you to trap people in the box, and not looking looking at a larger (truer) picture.

Simply accept the fact that Earth's temp does in fact change constantly and quickly, with or without the interference of human beings and you have the entire global warming/climate change issue mute. But they don't ever want to bring it up because they have their own agenda to push, they want to keep the argument inside a box, a box they can control and win with.

quote: The problem is that all Global Warming/Climate Change models predicated on a principle that Earth's temperature is stagnant. Meaning, within a certain time frame, temp is supposed to remain steady and even.

Where do people get this stuff? Yes, the planets temperature changes. NO ONE IS ARGUING OTHERWISE!

Its all about trendlines; if the line starts to skew in one direction, is that a varience, or a new trend? And over the past century, the trend has been a steady linaer increase in temperature [which indicates that in the short term, we should expect a continuing linear trend].

Secondly, opponents to Climate Change have yet to put forth any theory of their own to explain away that trend; arguing against GW with an opposing theory is one thing, but arguing against it without another explanation of the data is another one entirely.

Temperature changes for a reason; be it a decrease in solar output, to the moon steadily moving away from the planet, to GW affecting the atmosphere as a whole.

And before people bring up the Global Cooling debate of the mid-70's, the thought at the time was that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmoshphere would block out more heat then would be trapped, cooling the planet. This theory was thrown out after probes from Venus [mainly done by the USSR] started to measure Venus' surface temperatures, and people realised the opposite effect is true.

Heck, Venus is a pretty good example all by itself: A thick CO2 covering traps in heat [hence why Venus is warmer then even Mercury at the surface, despite significantly less Solar output]. Heck, CO2 is KNOWN beyond any reasonable doubt to trap heat. The only real argument is whether enough of it is being dumped to have an effect on Earth.

no the entire concept of global warming is that oh no its hotter by 1 degree now than it was 200 years ago we are all about to die!

The problem with the trend lines is the "scientists" all have different ones! Ive seen trend lines from an MIT scientist/professor that shows trend lines going down slightly over time since 1990. But then you look at the ones from the now discredited east anglia and they are all going up. You cant trust the data most of the time and the way they calculate the global average temperature is so convoluted that their own model doesnt compile (seriously some computer scientist tried to get their data to compile and he couldnt because several portions of it were hard coded to a certain value that was then tied to a variable that was supposed to be input by the user). I know we use satellite data but how hard is it to come up with a simple average for the data points where the satellites acquire their temp data?

The opponents of man made global warming dont have to put forth a theory to prove that the man made global warming supporters are mathematically wrong.

You do know that a lot of the temp data that the global warming scientists are using for temps earlier in time is from 3 (not 30 or 300 or 3000...just 3) trees cherry picked for their large rings out of Siberia. That's what they are pinning their older temps on... 3 tree's rings from 1 location in Russia.

Since you brought up the global cooling debate I will say that that was just as ludicrous.

If our atmosphere was so thick that you couldnt see the ground from space (like venus) then yeah there would be some global warming due to the particulate and/or gasses in the atmosphere... but its not and that's why there's no life on venus (shocker I know).

Lastly you do know that 95% of the greenhouse gasses is water vapor right? The entire atmosphere contains 0.0390% co2 (venus is 96.5% CO2).

quote: Where do people get this stuff? Yes, the planets temperature changes. NO ONE IS ARGUING OTHERWISE!

Well they DO use that to make their case. If it's a hot summer we hear news stories about it being proof of Global Warming. Cold Winters? Proof of that too. Bad hurricane season? Yup you guessed it, proof of global warming.

quote: Heck, Venus is a pretty good example all by itself: A thick CO2 covering traps in heat [hence why Venus is warmer then even Mercury at the surface, despite significantly less Solar output]. Heck, CO2 is KNOWN beyond any reasonable doubt to trap heat. The only real argument is whether enough of it is being dumped to have an effect on Earth.

Actually Venus is not the best example to prove CO2 is what is warming the Earth. The Earth does not have large amounts of Sulfuric Acid in the atmosphere, nor does it have tiny amounts of Water Vapor. That is like saying an Apple is an Orange because they are both spherical. Mercury is not as hot as Venus because there is no atmosphere at all to keep the dark side warm, just like the Moon there is an extreme temperature differential from light to dark because of lack of atmosphere. The Earth or Venus would be the same without atmosphere, and even if the atmosphere were 100% Nitrogen you would still have the effect of stabilizing the temperature differential to some degree. There are 100s of variables to consider when talking about climate, to reduce it to one (like CO2)and claim it is the total driving force is laughable.

This study shows there are many other chemicals that are much stronger at causing a greenhouse effect. It also states that they could become factors in warming that are manmade but are not yet at concentrations high enough to have much of an effect. The article also shows that until last November noone had actually done a spectroscopic study of gasses to see what their greenhouse potential really is, it is interesting how much stronger freon is than CO2. But on top of all this, you have to consider how well the gasses migrate into the upper atmosphere where they can actually cause the greenhouse effect. If they tend to stay near the ground as most heavier molecules do, then the effect is negated by their placement.

Also their models are based on the supposition that co2 is what's causing the warming. That was confessed on a PBS special by someone who worked to develop the model back in 82 I think it was. It worked for a while as long as the amount of co2 produced increased and the average temperature increased... but the temps have gone down in the past decade while co2 production has increased!

We just had the coldest summer on record a couple of years ago but you dont see that in the media because it doesnt fit the headline that the prophet Algore was right and we are killing mother earth. We are being lied to by the 60's and 70's hippies who are now grown up and put on a suit and ran for congress. As someone else said earlier the reason they are pushing for the cap and trade is power.

When you have a global government dictating how much co2 you can produce what's to stop them from limiting you to 1 hybrid car per household? Why stop there why not just say only x number of cars can be sold in each country? Then we have cap and trade for car purchases and the global government can claim that "this will go a long way to curbing global warming" when in reality all it will do is price the poor people out of the car market and jack up prices of everything all over the world.

Central planning is one of the tenants of a totalitarian regime and if the central planners can rally around a "moral issue" such as global warming then anyone who opposes their controls and caps is the enemy or immoral.

quote: Central planning is one of the tenants of a totalitarian regime and if the central planners can rally around a "moral issue" such as global warming then anyone who opposes their controls and caps is the enemy or immoral.

This is the basis behind the non-scientific political agenda that is entangled with the debate on global warming. There are scientist on both sides that have valid arguments, but the side that gives the politicians power is the one that will be promoted the most in public. And even if you don't believe in the more sinister prospect of governments wanting total control of the people, there is the more benign fact that government leaders feel threatened when faced with something that is beyond their control. It makes them look weak to their citizens.

If mankind is the driving force behind global warming, then governments have some control over it. If it is a totally natural occurrence then governments really have no control over global warming and they become powerless to stop it and thus look weak. If you want a good example of this just look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The government can blame BP and make a show of doing something by punishing them for it. Had it been a natural blowout in the sea floor and they were as powerless to control it as they have been so far, they would be ridiculed as totally incompetent and impotent as the government was after Katrina. Even in Katrina the governments did not want to start out saying "OK we have work to do" they just wanted to be able to blame someone for what was an act of nature beyond anyone's control.

Yet citizens from around the world are willing to give the govt more control to fight global warming so it would appear to be working if it is a conspiracy. Govt's need bad guys and carbon producing industries are the global warming bad guys.

quote: Really, a global conspiracy of global warming is a pretty elaborate trick to pull off just to increase their control over their citizens.

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Politicians naturally want to direct the emotional energy of their constituents. Spotting a hot-button issue and running with it is part and parcel to the whole political game.

You're talking about a group of people - diehard environmentalists - that have been pushing "man is killing Earth" line for decades. They obviously have a vested interest in the issue, and there's obviously huge piles of money involved (at least one very prominent party involved has made half a billion dollars already). It is not at all elaborate to essentially offer money to people to get them to agree with an agenda, which is the state of global climate research.

Saying it's for control, I think, is a little paranoid and baseless. It's more likely an economic thing. Think about how big the green industry is, and what would all the people be doing without global warming? The lay man doesn't understand/care about conservation for reasons other than "saving the environment," or so the idea goes.

OK, let's hear a few of these "easier ways".Global Warming is the perfect drug--a secular religion that grants all believers instant moral superiority and condemns all skeptics as enemies to both SCIENCE and BABY SEALS. Jaded intellectual or little girl in a room full of pony posters, Global Warming has something for YOU! Even while I detest the deception, I have to admire the subtlety of the tactics.

It's so perfect that even after East Anglia screamed FRAUD to all the world, they won't abandon it.

This is the problem I have with Global Warming. When the theory came out, I was actually leaning toward buying into it. And then when it started to be questioned, the scientists supporting started uttering things like "well WE all agree" and "you just don't understand".

That's not science, and those are not the answers to hard questions that scientists are supposed to come up with. "Shut up, we're smarter than you" isn't science, it's a belief.

Well, the thing is they do mostly agree and you probably wouldn't understand. Unless you are particularly well versed in partial differential equations, physics, and statistical analysis then you can't even begin to analyze the evidence yourself to any meaningful degree. The experts have to summarize it in layman's terms, and when they do, the doubters just claim they're lying. I can see how that would get pretty frustrating, to the point where you just want to tell them "Shut up, what do you know?!"

The thing with partial differential equations is that you can make them say whatever you want them to say when you are the one defining the ones that are used. They likely derived their partial differential equations from their own ideas of how the world works (i.e. we are ruining it by producing carbon dioxide) rather than from any realistic model of the world.

There are plenty of flaws in their work, especially when you question the statistical confidence levels for the data that they do have. They need millions of years of climate data to draw conclusions with any reasonable confidence level (e.g. 95%), yet they are working with climate data from only a few hundred years. Then they are quick to point to CO2 concentrations in Antarctic for the past hundred thousand years or so years, but those have no relationship to the planet's actual climate. They also say little about atmospheric concentrations of water vapor during that time, which are a far larger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That is why it feels hot when it is humid and cool otherwise.

In short, all of their data is meaningless and they are making fabricating their conclusions. It is logically impossible to draw conclusions from the data that they do have and also logically impossible to expand that collection to fix that. It is irrational to think otherwise. The only legitimate work in their field that I have seen so far suggests that the popular ideas they have are all wrong. One paper showed that Mars was exhibiting global warming to the same extent the Earth exhibited it. Another paper suggested that small changes in solar radiation was responsible for recent observations. Yet another paper showed that water vapor levels drop as carbon dioxide levels increase.

Considering the relatively small changes in solar radiation that occur during the winter and summer seasons, I am inclined to agree with the paper that correlates recent temperatures to changes in solar activity. Also, considering the fact that it feels warmer when it is humid and cooler when it is not, I would also agree with the paper that shows water vapor levels as playing a role. The ideas that solar radiation and water vapor levels determine the climate seem more plausible than the idea that carbon dioxide is the determining factor.

I’m a degreed mechanical engineer specializing in thermodynamics and heat transfer. Back a few years ago (when Al was just starting to get rolling on his war path) I worked for a company that made advanced refrigeration equipment. Due to the fact that they would be very much impacted by any legislation that would further curtail the types of refrigerants available to use (R404a has a GWP that is over 3 thousand time higher than carbon dioxide) I spent the better part of a week digging online for information. (Lest you think I was motivated to believe AGW was false out of some sense of fear for my job, I can tell you that the best thing for an engineer is to have the government outlaw their current designs. It insures a healthy future for engineers when they have to completely redesign all the current products to meet a new government mandate.)

Most of the stuff available then, as now, was just warmed over opinion based on a few actual source reports available at the time. (You can usually tell the difference between a source report and an article of supposition just by asking yourself “where did they come up with that information” as you read the claims, if they don’t have direct explanation of the base data, you know it is just supposition.) Anyway, after a good few days of searching, I found a couple of places that had the actual compiled test data. One was a NOAA report of about 150 pages. The one that most of the papers that started exploding into the public were based on at the time. Looking through it (the base data of the various tests and observation sites around the world) and taking time to make sure I understood the data that was contained within it, for a few days, I finally came away with the belief that no person with a strong foundation in science would actually be convinced that the climate community knew enough to make a thumbs up or down judgment on the topic.

Now I don’t mean to imply that I am an expert on the topic of climate, I certainly wouldn’t know what to investigate to clarify the debate myself, but I do understand how hot bits and cold bit interact with each other better than the average person, and more importantly, I understand how to interpret data and how to vet other people’s conclusions of a set of data. Many of the articles that I then read (one that based their opinions on the NOAA data) just didn’t make sense, by that I mean I could not understand how they formed the conclusions they came to based on the data they referenced. It often didn’t add up, or there was conflicting data that flat out was not evaluated in their reports (even though the conflicting data came from the same massive NOAA report that they got their supportive data from.)

To add on to this, it was right around that time that researchers off the coast of one of the northern islands of Alaska confirmed that they found liquid water vapor within cloud formations where the air temperature was -60°F. Prior to this, “common belief among the climatologists around the world” said that there was no possible way that cloud formations would have liquid water vapor in clouds at temperatures that low. Now if you know something about how differently the sun’s energy reacts to water vapor, as it does to crystalline ice particles in the sky, you would know that this is something that climatologists should have under their belts *before* proclaiming to the world that they know how the model of our Earth heats and cools.

Lastly, this was also the spring/summer after Katrina. Back then, all the climatologists were predicting that the following hurricane season was going to be even worse than the one before (the one that spawned Katrina) and that it was likely that the Gulf area would see at least 12 or 13 hurricanes that season. Guess what, that following season the gulf saw no hurricanes make landfall. Climatologists couldn’t use their computer models to make an accurate prediction out 4 months, yet they expect us to believe they can accurate model events out 20 30 years?

Taking these three separate issues (vast numbers of sensationalist reports that didn’t measure up to the base data, the fact that climatologists still don’t even understand the full workings of the atmosphere, and the fact that their models have been proven to be wrong every instance where time has caught up to their forward looking projections) that is why I disagree with the notion that “the scientific community at large knows AGW is true.” Not because I watch Fox News (I don’t) or because I dislike Keith Oberman (I do) but because I took enough time to make an informed decision on the topic myself. I suggest you all do the same.

Since then I’ve looked into it a few other times, not as deeply, but enough to come away once again that nothing has changed since may initial judgment on the debate (that climatologists still don’t have a foggy clue that actually happens in up in the air around us.)

How true. Many in the self rarefied air of science want to believe that they are the only group on the planet who have the capacity to comprehend such thought and are bolstered in their belief by the groupies who follow them blindly. Some enjoy producing rather than pure research even though they do have the capacity for research.

I have read many of the IPCC reports and BTW the head guy is just a railroad engineer. I found the IPCC used group A who used group B's data who used group C's data who used group A's data. The now discredited UK group was a prime source. They all had a commonality that is dangerous in the scientific world, unquestioning belief of the conclusion. This is far too complex issue for such an overly simple answer.

Discourse forces ideas to be refined and improved or discredited. Global Warming, Climate Change (an oxymoron label) pushers want that consensus label so they can push an agenda of power for them. Discourse prevents this from happening. So prevent rational discourse.

I don't buy into the "consensus" view, both on historical grounds and distrust of those pushing the consensus idea. (Look how long Newton was considered infallible and how entrenched his ideas were before Einstein) Taking one sole product, CO2, and creating it into the bad guy when there are many other components that are excluded, partly because they are beyond our control and don't contribute to the ideology. Do we impact our environment, of course. Are we the sole cause of all thing bad in the environment, no.

To label those who dare question the data as heretics is simply ludicrous and disingenuous. If your argument has serious holes but you want to believe so bad that you have to resort to ridiculing doubters you will eventually lose the argument, like the global cooling crowd of the 70s.

Is the house you live in “pollution?” I bet it was probably a nice clean grass land at one time.

Is the teaddy bear your child huges closely while going to sleep “pollution?” It’s probably made of the same materials you think you have issues with.

Is the substance you burn to keep your family warm in the winter “pollution?”

I bet to the birds and squirrels living around you think that everything you own and have ever done is just pollution. Feel free to dig in and eliminate as much of it as you want. Or maybe it is a little more complicated than just labeling it something catchy like “man made global pollution.”

I had the same problem as you did Reclaimer but I will take it a step further... It seemed to me that debate was being marginalized or ridiculed.. and media manipulation on the topic was at all time high.

quote: analyzing the number of research papers published "by more than 900 climate researchers" and the number of times these researchers' works were cited by other scientists

Circular logic at its finest. I'm going to publish nonsense so other people can point to my nonsense and publish their nonsense, so that others can reference all our works!

And if anyone cares, negating the couple short 2-3 year heating cycles we've seen in the past decade, the globe has been cooling over the course of the last 50 years. Just check the sea surface temps (you have to dig to get 50 years worth) http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/

Exactly my take. The "global warming" field is flooded by government money and the scientists depend on it for their very lives. They are biased to the core and then right when we thought DailyTech would only have 1 "writer" who believes that concensus is truth, we get this tiffany too. This place is going down the drain, just post tech articles and leave this garbage out.

Keep your rotten to the core junk science out of my economy and my life. We have enough government lies being used as excuses to further erode our individual liberties and freedom and capitalist enterprise. We don't need you mealy mouthed PMSNBC watching and New York Slimes reading moonbats telling us that we're flat earthers just because you believe in something that is NOT proven and ONLY attempted to be proven on cherry picked data (like temp sensors in the middle of freaking PARKING LOTS) and computer modeling

quote: People who still deny global warming are only "informed" by Faux News and other mouthpieces of the oil and petroleum industry.

Don't watch Fox, and I get no money from Big Oil.

The hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is the result of poor research at best, outright dishonesty at worst, and I know I can debate this issue with any of the "best informed" "scientists" out there.

The "investigation" that cleared the UK scientist was a sham, they did nothing more than look at a few articles and agree with them. They didn't look into his emails or his personal computer or even question the guy.

Please before you use ANOTHER half-truth to backup the climate sham please get all the facts.

ALSO you left out Al Gore's role in "climate-gate". His information he provided in the movie that got him an Oscar AND a nobel prize WAS FALSE. The scientist he quoted denied saying what Al Gore quote and thought the mere idea of making a prediction so exact was silly and reckless.

Yea, that article is a bit thin on detail, but it does have links to a number of not-well-known-about newspaper retractions. These are retractions to articles that anti-climate change types continue to use in an attempt to disprove" AGW.

quote: The "investigation" that cleared the UK scientist was a sham, they did nothing more than look at a few articles and agree with them. They didn't look into his emails or his personal computer or even question the guy.

Um yea, that's what science is, looking into scientific articles and seeing if there are any errors.

quote: They didn't look into his emails or his personal computer or even question the guy.

Are we on Oprah or something, why does science need personal interviews

And just because Al Gore got a fact or two wrong does not disprove AGW. That's just basic reasoning. With complicated scientific issues like this (as with other complicated scientific issues like evolution), the entire picture has to be viewed in order for a consensus of opinion to be formed.

quote: Sucks when the facts don't fit your faith huh?

My so-called faith has not been shaken, because you did not present me with any facts. Perhaps you are confused because you think that the lack of a fact is the same thing as a fact! It's not.

I'll do what you did not and I will present you with 2 real facts:1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.2. Human activity has in the past and continues to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

To me the question is not if we are going to change the climate, but how much.

So emails where he is plotting and planning about faking data and discrediting opposing views aren't relevant to an accusation of.... faking evidence and hiding opposing views?

Wow.

"I'll do what you did not and I will present you with 2 real facts:1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas."Yes it is, but carbon levels have continued to rise and the temps... have gone up... and down and leveled off, then back up and back down.

Ever wonder why it became "climate change" rather than "global warming"? Because their "facts" that carbon magically makes all temps rise was proven false by their own research.

FYI you do know volcanos spew more carbon in the the atmosphere in ONE eruption than all of humanity combined? huh kinda should shake your faith a bit.

"2. Human activity has in the past and continues to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

quote: So emails where he is plotting and planning about faking data and discrediting opposing views aren't relevant to an accusation of.... faking evidence and hiding opposing views?

So, there happen to be a (probably very) few climate scientists who are willing to plot and scheme and some are disreputable. Shocker. This does not prove or disprove climate change. However, The articles that these scientists wrote and published were found to contain good science after careful review. And a scientists published work is the most important thing, not their personal behavior.

quote: FYI you do know volcanoes spew more carbon in the the atmosphere in ONE eruption than all of humanity combined? huh kinda should shake your faith a bit.

This is typical anti-climate-change anti-science, you keep trotting out the same arguments oblivious to the fact that they have long been discredited. Do you believe everything that some idiot posts on the internet? I like to have facts to back up what I say, you do not seem to share that hindrance.

Unfortunately this "study" is likely to be cited all over, but as best I can tell from the article, this study was basically a collection of the most-published global warming proponents, correct? Because due to bias, dissenters are published less... and so, therefore, their opinion is less valid because people refuse to listen to them? What utter, utter BS.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet. A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis